So Adamson has this huge experience and takes it to be stright out of heaven; he then re-writes the gospels, opens seven seals. How do we know he was not on drugs or halucianteing. If according to him Jesus never claimed He was God, then we can not relay on anything else in the Gospels to be true.

So Adamson has this huge experience and takes it to be stright out of heaven; he then re-writes the gospels, opens seven seals. How do we know he was not on drugs or halucianteing. If according to him Jesus never claimed He was God, then we can not relay on anything else in the Gospels to be true.

Adamson does not "re-write the gospels." See my post #8 in which I explain how Adamson, like Thomas Jefferson and like the members of the modern Jesus Seminar, recognize that their are "corruptions" and fabrications in the "New Testament" as we know it.

For example, in his article on The Virgin Birth Story, he explains fully how and why that myth was established. The reference in the book of Matthew to Isaiah 7:14 about Immanuel is not accurate or appropriate. The author of those words now in the book of Matthew about a "virgin birth" was simply in error about that prophecy of Isaiah, which was fulfilled when a "young woman" gave birth to her Immanuel 733 years before Jesus was even born.

That's just one example of erroneous attributions in the Christian gospels to Judaic prophecies. And that is why Rabbinical scholars, Muslim scholars, and many Christian scholars do not buy the ideas expressed in the Nicene Creed.

That is why in 1823 Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third U.S. President) wrote: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

In more recent times, John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, wrote: "In time, the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and the story of the cosmic ascension as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition, whose purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings."

The modern son of man points out that another eminent Christian scholar, Marcus Borg, seems to agree with that, even though he was more subtle about it. In his book, The Meaning of Jesus, he states: "The stories of (Jesus' virgin) birth are found only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, both written near the end of the first century." Borg points out that earlier writers, such as Paul and Mark, and even John, make no mention of it. Borg feels that there are two possible explanations for this, that "either the tradition of the virgin birth was old, so these authors either didn't know about it or didn't consider it important enough to include. Or the tradition didn't develop until quite late, and the reason most New Testament authors do not mention it is because the stories did not yet exist."

As he says, ultimately Christians will realize what should be taken literally and what should be recognized as myth or symbolism or allegory in scriptures. After all, throughout the Old Testament we hear of the very unusual births of individuals like Ishmael, Isaac, Samson and Samuel, and usually, prior to their birth, an angel appeared, the message of an upcoming birth was given, and a sign was given. All these facts indicate that the story of Jesus followed a very traditional pattern to establish his credentials and divine status. And other religions had similar mythical traditions, which many "true believers" regarded as truth.

Reformationnow, I have no problem with your assertion that the virgin birth may have more to do with "credentials" than with historic fact. However near the end of your last post you wrote, "As Adamson says, ultimately Christians will realize what should be taken literally and what should be recognized as myth or symbolism or allegory in scriptures." My problem with this statement is, what in particular should be taken literally? And is your Mr. Adamson part of the ongoing dialog that includes Spong, Borg, and many others, or is he claiming some unique individual perspective on our understanding of Christianity? If he is somewhere near the latter end of the spectrum, I think you should be open about that.

Virgin birth or not, 'love thy neighbour as thyself' will have the same power. President Jefferson was surrounded with people of Jewish descent who of course would not have any respect for Christ the Messiah. Taking his word as gospel truth is asking too much.

The Universal Divine Imperative, common to all religions is, in so many words, that we should treat all others as we would want to be treated if we were them. It's based on the universal, scientific law of reciprocity. And all genuine spiritual teachers have taught that love is far more powerful, in the long run, than anger and hate. Hate and anger are destructive, and love is productive and nurturing.

Furthermore, Jefferson was a Deist who recognized the need to respect all religions. His word is not "gospel truth." It's just common sense, as Adamson's is.

Reformationnow, I have no problem with your assertion that the virgin birth may have more to do with "credentials" than with historic fact. However near the end of your last post you wrote, "As Adamson says, ultimately Christians will realize what should be taken literally and what should be recognized as myth or symbolism or allegory in scriptures." My problem with this statement is, what in particular should be taken literally? And is your Mr. Adamson part of the ongoing dialog that includes Spong, Borg, and many others, or is he claiming some unique individual perspective on our understanding of Christianity? If he is somewhere near the latter end of the spectrum, I think you should be open about that.

Adamson is quite open about that. On many pages on his web site he submits that he fulfills Judeo-Christian prophecy as the "servant of God, the son of man who is first rejected by his generation and suffers many things." The main page is quite clear on that, and explains the confusion caused by misleading Christian doctrine. And on the page titled Propecies Re: He Who Fulfills Them, he provides full clarification.

He also explains what should be taken literally, and what is symbolic, or allegorical, or metaphorical. And basically, when you get the message, it's quite clear that whatever is designed to bring humanity together, with recognition that we are all children of God and equal in the sight of God, can be taken literally. That's God will, for the benefit of all God's children. The "fire and brimstone" stuff is the scare tactics of stern patriarchs who may have meant well, but caused the "Dark Ages" and all the conflict and division ever since. That's a big reason why we are in this mess.

Adamson may be open about his sense of uniqueness, but you have not been until now. My sense of what progressive Christianity entails includes an openness to the possibility that there are lots of folks who are "servants of God" and that none of them is uniquely superior to the others. As to literalness, I would suggest that it is almost universally non-productive. It isn't necessary to have literal interpretations to "bring humanity together, with recognition that we are all children of God and equal in the sight of God."

Adamson may be open about his sense of uniqueness, but you have not been until now. My sense of what progressive Christianity entails includes an openness to the possibility that there are lots of folks who are "servants of God" and that none of them is uniquely superior to the others. As to literalness, I would suggest that it is almost universally non-productive. It isn't necessary to have literal interpretations to "bring humanity together, with recognition that we are all children of God and equal in the sight of God."

First, it would be impossible for me to quote all of the message here. Even the summarized message on his web site comprehensively covers all the crucial issues of the day, and there are many articles on the site. So the claim that I have not been "open" is not fair at all. I am glad to answer any questions, and I have.

Second, of course there are many servants of God. However, there is but one who fulfills prophecies of the one to come, the servant-messenger for the "Spirit of truth who will issue judgment, guide us unto truth, show us things to come, and glorify the Christ in heaven." That messenger is the "son of man, who shall first be rejected by his generation and suffer many things." (See John 16:7-15, and Luke 17:22-25, and read Prophecies Re: He Who Fulfills Them.

Third, I did not say it was a "literalist" message. The modern son of man distinguishes between what is symbolic or allegorical and not intended to be taken literally, as opposed to what is actually literal and real, such as that it will be the "meek" who shall inherit the earth, make peace, and turn all the "swords into plowshares."

Fourth, my intention is simply to direct your attention to the message.

Reformation now, I find your response inapproppriate for a number of reasons. It wasn't necessary to quote Adamson at all but simply to indicate this implied sense of uniqueness to make it clear where you are coming from. And whether you say there are many servants of God or not, the claim of one "servant-messenger" still fits my definition of uniqueness. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comment about literalness, but it should have been clear that I was not saying that Adamson was a "literalist." And finally, the "horse to water" comment is condescending. Your Mr. Adamson may have valuable things to say, but they are lost in the vast volumes of material on his website. And his is only one view in a vast number that speak to the same concerns and reach many of the same conclusions.

Reformation now, I find your response inapproppriate for a number of reasons. It wasn't necessary to quote Adamson at all but simply to indicate this implied sense of uniqueness to make it clear where you are coming from. And whether you say there are many servants of God or not, the claim of one "servant-messenger" still fits my definition of uniqueness. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comment about literalness, but it should have been clear that I was not saying that Adamson was a "literalist." And finally, the "horse to water" comment is condescending. Your Mr. Adamson may have valuable things to say, but they are lost in the vast volumes of material on his website. And his is only one view in a vast number that speak to the same concerns and reach many of the same conclusions.

Grandpa, I certainly did not intend to be condescending. I apologize if it seemed so. Apparently we both misinterpreted each other's tone.

I have become accustomed to people either dismissing or rejecting Adamson's premise out of hand, without bothering to learn what the message is really all about. In fact, that's usually the case.

I agree that the message contains a lot of material, and it may seem overwhelming at first. But the main page is a summary, and each page deals with many separate issues more comprehensively.

You are quite correct that many political activists and spiritual teachers have reached many of the same conclusions. And in fact, here's what the messenger says about that:

"Of course, there are a number of good and true spiritual teachers in the world, and some of them can tell you much of what I have to tell you, because they have been given the gift of revelation and realization of some divine, eternal, universal truths. In fact, some of them are far more learned and knowledgeable than I am, and they have much to teach those who wish to learn from them. But, the prophesied messenger of God and the Spirit of truth is different, and unique. Of course he must be a spiritual teacher, but he must also deliver the judgment that will save and change the whole world, and he must also tell you what is to come."

On the Main Page he wrote:

"Unfortunately, most people think it rather audacious (if not arrogant or even delusional) for a man to assert that he fulfills prophecies and knows the divinely inspired truth that most of humanity is waiting for. To make matters worse for this son of man who does know, there are many different expectations regarding a Mashiach, Messiah, Kalki Avatar, Buddha Maitreya, Saoshyant, Mahdi, etc., and most of those expectations are based on misinformation, inaccurate man-made doctrines, and myths. Therefore, this man who fulfills real prophecies does not meet such expectations, nor do I claim any of those titles."

"I merely say I am what I am, a son of man, of your brethren, from your midst, and only too human, but I bear witness to the Divine Light of God, having been carried away in spirit to that high and holy place where God inhabits eternity."

"That's why this son of man prays:Dear God in heaven, bless the whole world and every person, every religion, every nation, every race, and every culture, and let no one keep clinging to the misguided notion that theirs is superior to all others."